Previous news story    Next news story

A sneak peek at our forthcoming camera test scene

By dpreview staff on Oct 9, 2012 at 23:59 GMT

As part of the development of connect.dpreview.com we've created a more advanced, more detailed test scene, which will be launched on dpreview.com soon. The new scene is roughly eight times larger (in area) than the existing test, allowing us to test to even higher resolutions than before. A larger scene also increases working distances - avoiding the inconsistent performances we've seen from some recent fixed-lens cameras, and the new design effectively overcomes the depth of field limitations experienced with our current studio scene.

We're also working on a low-light mode that will give a truer impression of how the cameras will perform in poor lighting in the real world. The low-light mode will not only use lower luminance but also a less color-balanced light source - giving a clearer impression of what happens under real-world lighting, when cameras struggle to capture and represent color accurately.

The test scene can be seen in our phone reviews, over at connect.dpreview.com, but we'll be using it for many of the cameras launched at Photokina in the very near future, and working to re-test key cameras from the last year or two.

Comments

Total comments: 324
1234
Joerg V
By Joerg V (Oct 10, 2012)

New test scene - yikes!
Re-test key cameras - unyikes!

Good job!

3 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Oct 10, 2012)

This is a great idea, and it really will be helpful if you re-shoot test shots for "key cameras from the last year or two."

Whenever you change a test shot it makes it impossible to compare new cameras to older but still very recent ones. You seem to have anticipated this concern, and have a plan to address it.

Thanks!

6 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (Oct 10, 2012)

What camera was that shot taken with?

1 upvote
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Oct 10, 2012)

Probably none. I guess Nokia N808.

0 upvotes
Timur Born
By Timur Born (Oct 10, 2012)

First: Thumbs up for optimizing your studio test scene in order to satisfy the needs of better measurements! :)

Things I am missing:

- Larger areas of diagonal lines (45° in both directions), which reveal weaknesses in non Bayer pattern cameras (especially EXR) better than the small sun-stars.

- More shadow on the fur inside the shadow box. The yellow fur in the old box did reveal shadow/dynamic-range performance of different cameras very well, especially in the dark upper left corner where the single hairs of the fur stood out.

- More different color patches in more shadowy areas. The color chart left to the green bottle (especially green patch) and the label of said bottle (especially words "Road" and "Product") would very much reveal loss of saturation and resolution due to high ISO noise and/or JPG noise-reduction.

- I agree about the blond/contrasty hair vs. dark hair part.

7 upvotes
oris
By oris (Oct 10, 2012)

lens lens lens...
biger sensors and more mgpx need much better lensses.
ori

1 upvote
Rocker44
By Rocker44 (Oct 10, 2012)

What camera did you use to take this test snap? ;)

0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Oct 10, 2012)

My guess: Nokia 808.

0 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (Oct 10, 2012)

More suggestions from the peanut gallery:

SHADOW DETAIL

The old shadow box was good. The new one should be bigger and darker. Ideally it would be closer to the centre too, to avoid vignetting variations between lenses.

The shadow box is unimportant in the browser view, but it’s critical for pushing the raw files kindly provided by DPReview. Bigger is better, to reveal pattern noise: it doesn’t need to be wholly within the DOF to work.

SHARPNESS

The old scene had key objects strewn about the edges (watch, globe, paintbrush, martini logo). Thus it tested lenses more than sensors. Many errant conclusions about SLRs were derived from that watch face.

To avoid that this time, put more fine detail near the centre, and less featureless grey there.

MOIRÉ

The old scene revealed moiré in cameras of about 20 megapixels (but not above 30): http://tinyurl.com/8lggr2r

Something to reveal moire in the 10–100 megapixel range would be welcome, especially since anti-aliasing filters are passé!

8 upvotes
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (Oct 10, 2012)

cont.

LOW LIGHT

Low light typically comes with two other problems: skewed spectrum (which you’ll emulate) and high contrast (missing).

To emulate contrast, rake the scene with hard light and use a gobo to throw a large part of it into deep shadow.

CONSISTENCY

It would be great if DPReview standardised the lighting and exposure (shutter speed and f-number) for each ISO, even if that means not saturating the sensor at each ISO setting.

GENERAL

I’m not a fan of the photos. Objects have known hard edges, texture, and intuitive contrast. I can’t guess the detail, texture, and contrast of a printed photograph.

I’d also love to see an article explaining how to compare cameras with this scene. It’s only obvious to you because you’re camera reviewers.

Finally, it’s helpful in discussions if key items or areas can be clearly labelled, such as the globe, watch, paintbrush, and martini logo in the old scene. Maybe even labels on the scene would be useful?

Sorry for the length.

6 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (Oct 10, 2012)

I agree that the photos don't help much US readers since we have no idea of the original resolution of the print(foto-chemical? ink? and how many real DPI etc etc)
Also the part of having a dark box to explore that subject(that for instance seems Really bad in EOS 5III, and much WORST versus Nikon 800! oposedly to what we would have expected/even wished!!!)
But if Dpreview says it solves other important issues, let's hope so.
Still, it's a pity they don't make it ALL better in one go!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Oct 10, 2012)

On low-light it looks like that's exactly what they're doing, see http://connect.dpreview.com/post/4388245494/nokia-808-pureview-review?page=8

1 upvote
Samuel Dilworth
By Samuel Dilworth (Oct 10, 2012)

Thanks for pointing that out, Andy.

That’s the right idea, though I’d prefer the left side to be nearly black (especially for SLR testing), whether by falloff or gobo (flag).

Do a Google Images search for ‘low light’ and note the typical extreme contrast and large areas of near black. This contrast is why cameras perform poorly in low light, not – as is often thought – the low illuminance itself.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 10, 2012)

We're working on the low-light mode and are likely to have a well-lit and a poorly lit area, to provide exactly that contrast.

2 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Oct 10, 2012)

Dpreview viewers, let's guess which lens camera combo was used to take the above picture.

And the winner will be named the King / Queen of pixel peeping.

2 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Oct 10, 2012)

I guess, it was not taken by a real camera.
Think it was the Nokia 808.
The colors are awful...

2 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Oct 10, 2012)

Examining the perspective, I'm pretty sure it's taken by a 50mm lens with a slight decentering, the right side is sharper than the left side.

0 upvotes
Robert F. Tobler
By Robert F. Tobler (Oct 10, 2012)

Obviously a lot of thought has gone into what to include, still I have the following suggestions:

1. The paper-clips were a better way to judge highlight performance than the more artificial targets above the "Zwanzig Schilling" and left of the playing cards. The cylindrical features of the paper-clips are a lot more representative of what appears in real-world scenes.

2. The "blond hair" sample from the old scene (left of the blue wrist-watch) was a very good way of judging various issues with built-in noise reduction. The equivalents in the new scene are a bit too artificial (blue coloured, or too dark)

3. In order to help landscape photographers, it would be nice to include a photo of vegetation with various shades of green, and detailed structure in the right upper section, the lawsn of the church and temple are a bit too limited.

0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (Oct 10, 2012)

Relating to #1 there are some silver baubles hanging at the top-center (just to the right of the circuit board) that should be good for judging highlight performance.

0 upvotes
David0X
By David0X (Oct 10, 2012)

Good robust discussion here!

As someone who has spent way more time than is healthy looking at the old chart,
and way more money than is wise buying cameras (not true really, they make me rich)

It seems the DPR guys are viewing comments and taking them on board, so I will add:

In comparing models I looked almost exclusively at:
1: the Martini bottle coins (first stop for outright resolution), then
2: the paper clips (tricky for cameras), then
3: the fuzzzy coloured balls (for high ISO), and finally
4: the Paul Smith watch (a combo of the others)

FWIW I don't like photos on a test chart, because unless you know what screen/process/quality was used to print them they're a bit useless, and even if they aren't useless there's usually a real object that will give you better info.

On the new chart I think I'll be going
1:Resolution chart
2: Fuzzy Balls (yay)
3: Circuit board

PS - if you stuck those crayons on with Blu-Tac I hope you realise they'll fall off before too long...

5 upvotes
goatgaaru
By goatgaaru (Oct 10, 2012)

woohooo the Indian Flag has made it into the scene... :))

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
1 upvote
smatty
By smatty (Oct 10, 2012)

Will cameras as far back as Canon 5D MK II and Nikon D700 be retested for comparison reference?

5 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Oct 10, 2012)

we have a list of about 80 cameras.... gulp

2 upvotes
scotbot
By scotbot (Oct 10, 2012)

Will the old scene be preserved somewhere in a museum? I'm only half joking - it's been extremely important to may people (and no doubt manufacturers) over the years and it would be a real shame if it all went in the bin!

7 upvotes
Debankur Mukherjee
By Debankur Mukherjee (Oct 10, 2012)

Good setup.....

0 upvotes
PhilPreston3072
By PhilPreston3072 (Oct 10, 2012)

Can we replace the photo of the old man in the upper right corner? His skin tone looks Burgandy Red and unnatural. We need a photo with true to life skin tones so that the skin tone renderings can be judged more accurately.

0 upvotes
mbk
By mbk (Oct 10, 2012)

Some more critique:
- in the old scene, you had much more informative color swatches including hue, lightness, and saturation. I found these swatches *extremely* valuable in telling camera color rendition apart. Some cameras would show subtle hue differences say, in low saturation reds, while others would not be able to differentiate those hues. DxO does not have this kind of information but your old scene did. In your new scene you only include a fairly basic color chart. It has hues but no gradations in saturation and lightness. I consider this a major loss in the ability to judge color rendition.
- as others pointed out, I find it puzzling that you'd add photo prints as subjects. There are at least three problems with pictures of pictures, one, there is no intuitive clue on color accuracy with a printed image, two, a print is already a previous camera rendition, and three, these prints will fade over the years as you blast them with light for your test images.

13 upvotes
philippei
By philippei (Oct 10, 2012)

Well....it will be not easy now to compare old models with new models...the spirit of this new test scene is close to the one used by french site focusnumerique, it will be worthlooking on both sites.

2 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (Oct 10, 2012)

@philippei: THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
Thank you so very much for letting us know other site with aparently extremely good reviews!!! :D

1 upvote
Marek Rucinski
By Marek Rucinski (Oct 10, 2012)

How much dynamic range is this scene intended to have? 3 stops? 4?

1 upvote
Trondster
By Trondster (Oct 10, 2012)

Noooo - no Baileys logo! That tree has been the definition of sharpness for ages!!

8 upvotes
scotbot
By scotbot (Oct 10, 2012)

Haha yes!

1 upvote
3tagebart
By 3tagebart (Oct 10, 2012)

Good point, bad drink.

2 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Oct 10, 2012)

Marvellous point, delectable drink.

1 upvote
3tagebart
By 3tagebart (Oct 10, 2012)

I really like the fact that you used a "Zwanzig Schilling" banknote from Austria :-)

0 upvotes
valtheWU
By valtheWU (Oct 10, 2012)

especially when it is the old one...

1 upvote
3tagebart
By 3tagebart (Oct 10, 2012)

Carl Ritter von Ghega ftw! ;-)

0 upvotes
MGJA
By MGJA (Oct 10, 2012)

Solid effort on DPRs part here. Solid.

Let's count the ways in which this is great:

- They've committed to reshoot "key cameras" of the last year with this scene. Comparability maintained.
- DOF vs diffraction issues hopefully finally laid to rest.
- Good number of varying items, testing for lots of different image issues.
- Center and corner test chart rings, great (but brace for fanboy complaints about using decentered or otherwise faulty lenses).

Potential pitfalls:

- Perhaps too many pictures. Shooting an object and a printed pictures are different things.
- The textile star patterns to the left and lightly above the center square could use slightly more intricate patterns, perhaps.
- The old scene provided for some shadows, this one doesn't. Hard to see what can be done about while preserving the plane approximation.

As an IQ test, it will do very well. Possibly the old blue clock face would merit an inclusion.

10 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Oct 10, 2012)

very good, well-written post.
As for shadow - I guess there's one in black box on top of the scene, though: yea, the low-light scene will be the one for any real judging.
What I'm missing are some highlights - say: silver spoon, or something very glossy.
But other then that - I just hope they'll finally start testing lenses back again!

3 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Oct 10, 2012)

I hate it, when they change the scene, but understand they need to. ;-)

I agree with both posts above and would like to add two things:

I miss the paperclips and the thread rolls from the old scene. Both were very hard objects for most cameras.

I also hope, that "key cameras" will not only comprise system cameras, but also many compacts.

Regards,
Michael

3 upvotes
increments
By increments (Oct 10, 2012)

Agree about too many pictures.

5 upvotes
Bjrn SWE
By Bjrn SWE (Oct 10, 2012)

Too many printed pictures in the upper right corner. I would like to see more real objects such as watches, wood, brushed metal, rusty metal etc

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
14 upvotes
Banhmi
By Banhmi (Oct 10, 2012)

DPR... can't we add some lingerie models to the new test scene? Beautiful female bodies are a cornerstone of photography!

3 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Oct 10, 2012)

Plus we have to see how the camera render skin tones.

3 upvotes
Cheng Bao
By Cheng Bao (Oct 10, 2012)

One question, do you guys try to maintain light EV consistence through different test at different times?

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Oct 10, 2012)

Looks so. Huge gray card in the middle surely will help with that. :)

0 upvotes
hajagosb
By hajagosb (Oct 10, 2012)

it's nice that you always have some booze related stuff there :)

1 upvote
dharma65
By dharma65 (Oct 10, 2012)

the blue clock is a must have !!! you HAVE to put it in the scene please!!!!
and what about the little world? and the bottles and ... oh I'm going to miss so many things, I, personally, like the other scene MUCH more than this

7 upvotes
MadManAce
By MadManAce (Oct 10, 2012)

I looks like DPReview has finally taken into account defraction and DOF limits. With the current setup, the camera is too close and the items are too separated, this puts some items slightly out of focus even when shot at F/11. Also, shooting at F/11 was fine with the old 6MP cameras but with today’s high MP cameras defraction is noticeable.

0 upvotes
Coguar
By Coguar (Oct 10, 2012)

Great, but one CLOCK is missing, old blue one is must have here :)

8 upvotes
sderdiarian
By sderdiarian (Oct 10, 2012)

Yes, yes, yes! My first stop is always the clock to check and compare noise/sharpness at various ISO's.

I'm also concerned about how we'll compare cameras reviewed before intro of this new scene to those that come after (see comment below, same concern). Hate to say it, but in the interest of usability you should shoot both old and new, or forget about the new.

2 upvotes
lester11
By lester11 (Oct 10, 2012)

Yup, need that blue-faced wristwatch. Saw that in the OM-D test, sold my (perfectly good) Pentax K-5 and Panny G3 and went out and bought two OM-Ds...

3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Oct 10, 2012)

o_O lol... one really needs to have too much money in order to get a new gear only because of a single shot of some random clock.

3 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (Oct 10, 2012)

Quick question...how can we compare old test with the new one? Are you going to test old cameras with this new scene so we have a straight comparison?

1 upvote
Itai42
By Itai42 (Oct 10, 2012)

* Also - more feathers please :) old scene had just the right amount of fine feathers with enough overlap between them to differentiate the cameras and indicate the ISO at which details went bye-bye...

* One more note - we are all used to the old scene and stared at it enough to have us freak out from having it changed, but I'm sure as we get used to this one we'll have our new favorite places - maybe it won't be a globe and a gray&red thread in the shade- but we'll find our favorite territory... it does look like a good combination of textile, charts, colorful things and fine detail (I like the wildlife-on-a-soundblaster already :)

* Thanks for continuing with your effort to make great resources for us. We DO appreciate the effort it takes to redo all the scene photos

* on a side note - a gin advert is not a gin bottle - we want some real booze

3 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Oct 10, 2012)

Plus one on the booze!! Liquor is the elixir of modern civilisation ...

2 upvotes
keysmith
By keysmith (Oct 10, 2012)

i miss the the watch, the blond hairs and the 'Apollo' paper money of the old scenery. It used to be a reference for me. I don't like the upper right corner filled up with.. printed photos (!). Use real texture please! Rest of them are ok (not all for me but ok)

3 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Oct 10, 2012)

I also miss the prominently placed Bicycle-brand Queen of hearts. While it is nice that a Queen of hearts is included here, I feel that the other cards beneath her are not all that necessary, and more importantly, she is no longer that familiar old Bicycle brand Queen design. :( Seems like a lot of space that isn't being used or could be put to better use, and I agree with adding in more 3D objects versus having so many photos and prints! Some are good, but not too many!

3 upvotes
Itai42
By Itai42 (Oct 10, 2012)

A couple of notes:
* In the old scene there were fur-balls and threads shades that allowed shadow features to be judged. I see the box on top and assume it's meant to serve this purpose - but the threads aren't there and my guess is that the placement of fur-balls will mean they will be seen very differently with different lenses...

* The globe is missing - it was a good way to judge well lit high-iso resolution and evaluate the jpeg vs. raw output. It was fine black on blue and yellow - which was a good way to judge chroma-noise

* Blue eyed girl on the right is very nice - but skin color there is quite pale - old scene had better skin-color sample with the standard palette
* There's no alcohol anywhere in the picture - this is very wrong!

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Oct 10, 2012)

Globe wasn't good for judging the resolution at all. All it did was confusing people as they didn't looked for depth of field issues but rather blamed everything on a camera straight away.
It's great that they removed it - no more judging of camera basing on it's depth of field and photographer's focusing skill!

0 upvotes
Itai42
By Itai42 (Oct 10, 2012)

Actually - it was a good item to compare images from the same camera at different iso and see the effect of chroma-noise.

My point is that looking at uniform area to see the effect of chroma noise is less informative then using the globe - with it's black text over blue and yellow (and less importantly - green). It is not as sensitive to the noise and I always felt it gives a hint of how it will show on the subject in some real-life situations.

I do see your point on how it can be confusing when you see comparison of several cameras and try to use it as the place to check how the resolution of the cameras is...

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Oct 10, 2012)

Including a Colorchecker Passport would be nice. So everyone with the matching SW could make some color tests.

On the left side is an old Austrian banknote. Wouldn't it be more useful to place a modern US Dollar note ?

The scene is too uniform. How can one tell something about highlights and shadows ? Say ... noise in the shadow areas.

Finally : I think this testscene is less useful than the old one. It looks more like a homeless person placed all his goods on a table.

7 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Oct 10, 2012)

If so, that is a homeless person with pretty good taste!

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Oct 10, 2012)

"Including a Colorchecker Passport would be nice. So everyone with the matching SW could make some color tests."
+100

4 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Oct 10, 2012)

I admit that I like the old Creative brand 'sound blaster' card, with the little plastic creatures on it. Looks like a 4500 model .. that was a cool era.

0 upvotes
avgcitizen
By avgcitizen (Oct 10, 2012)

Yikes, how is this an improvement? DPReview has fallen upon hard times, dumpster diving for a sad new test scene. I'd hoped y'all would use the scientific method as your guide, not Pinterest.

Don't most pixel peepers just want to peep for fine detail and shadow noise, especially at high ISO? These seems to be missing in the new scrapbook look. You can fix color in RAW but you can't recover detail, so where is the shadowy stuff from the old scene like behind the paper clips and at the bottom of the Bailey's bottle?

Oy.

4 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Oct 10, 2012)

For shadow noise and stuff like that you'll have low-light scene, and black box.

0 upvotes
P@l
By P@l (Oct 10, 2012)

Actually ... I do not like it at all ... especially the whole right corner filled with pictures ... seems like someone just filled the empty space without a second thought ... and check that glare from the overhead light in the "red" picture? ... looks like a permanent feature ...

You could start over selecting the "must" items first and carefully filling the remaining space around them ... hint, hint ... using as many elements from the "old" target as possible even in odd locations will at least help with consistency and maintain base for comparisons ... better yet let people brain storm some ideas ...

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Oct 10, 2012)

"... better yet let people brain storm some ideas ..."
Bravo! I like that idea. Let's put many collective heads together!

2 upvotes
J D Tranquil
By J D Tranquil (Oct 10, 2012)

I will dearly miss the watch. Look forward to the change, especially, the low-light test. You guys just keep moving forward. Thanks!

1 upvote
mbk
By mbk (Oct 10, 2012)

This is actually a disaster unless you also keep the old test scene in parallel for sake of comparison. These test scenes are always just proxies, and that is OK. The ONLY purpose of test scenes is to compare across models. Their whole existence depends on not changing them. The larger the database with a single test scene, the more valuable it is. This is really important. It gives you a time line. It makes the past comparable. Including 'old 'standards is done all the time in science. NASA included a 1909 penny in the calibration set for NASA's current Mars Rover camera. If you change the test scene you diminish its only reason to exist because old models are now 'out'. DPR is the single one site where I can still compare how new cameras perform in relation to old "standards". I urge you to not take this away for marginal gains on resolution or such.

Resolution and noise are so overblown as a criteria anyway, what bugs me on current cameras is color rendition at higher ISOs.

8 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Oct 10, 2012)

You'll be pleased to know that we have considered these issues. Because they're kind of obvious (and we've done this before)

:)

5 upvotes
mbk
By mbk (Oct 10, 2012)

Well I'll be grateful if you do consider these issues. Because your studio comparison tool as it is now, is more useful to me than say the more "scientifically precise" DxO. That is for the reasons you stated elsewhere in this thread (shooting the scene the way a camera user would actually use the camera rather than some sterile sensor testing a la DxO).

0 upvotes
TotallyFred
By TotallyFred (Oct 10, 2012)

@Barney. I found a fair number of your answers defensive and not informative enough. The smiley does not bring much. MBK and others before have a fair point and it would be nice to have a proper educative answer on what you have taken into consideration.

I see brief answers in previous posts but one can sense a lot more curiosity. We are here to learn.

Continuity was an important factor and the article really should mention that older cameras would be re-tested on the new scene.

You may not feel it from inside but many readers *believe* DPreview is running thin. It was not "obvious" that you would re-test.

A detailed article about why the old scene was problematic and how the new one is being designed would be most interesting.

Comment edited 15 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
MadManAce
By MadManAce (Oct 10, 2012)

I looks like DPReview has finally taken into account defraction and DOF limits. With the current setup, the camera is too close and the items are too separated, this puts some items slightly out of focus even when shot at F/11. Also, shooting at F/11 was fine with the old 6MP cameras but with today’s high MP cameras defraction is noticeable.

0 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (Oct 10, 2012)

TotallyFred has spoken extremely well to Barney@dpreview!!!
We all come here to learn, giving non-answers doesn't go in that direction as dpreview got us used.
I TRULY hope this is not already the second sign that dpreview is going down hill putting other (economical) interests in front of pure information for the readers!!! :(

That would be the end of non-biased information and the whole point in such a informative site!!! :(

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Oct 10, 2012)

We've tried to put all the explanation in the news story:

The old scene's small size meant cameras were starting to out-resolve it, so we needed something larger to be able to show the differences.

The close working distances were a problem for some new cameras, including the Canon G1X and Sony RX100, making it hard to shoot images that represented their real-world behaviour.

The current scene only dates back 3 or 4 years, so has only recently started to have a large back-catalogue of cameras - we will be re-shooting as many relevant cameras as possible (something that involves considerable resource/cost to improve what our reviews offer). We won't continue testing with our old scene but it'll remain available.

Sorry if this wasn't clear from the news story.

1 upvote
naththo
By naththo (Oct 10, 2012)

We need to have more feature than few in that. So update is totally necessary. Even include colour checker is very good! That verify the colour data of camera.

1 upvote
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Oct 10, 2012)

I'm sure gonna miss that gorgeous Irish countryside on the Baileys bottle :(

2 upvotes
pedroboe100
By pedroboe100 (Oct 10, 2012)

Lol! I was thinking the same thing. Time to get a case.

1 upvote
Steve Bingham
By Steve Bingham (Oct 10, 2012)

A joke! Now we have NO basis for older comparisons! Geezzz, what were you thinking?

4 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Oct 10, 2012)

this will be the 7th iteration of the studio scene in dpreview's history (the current one only goes back 3 years). It is necessary, but we won't introduce it until we have populated the db with as many old models as humanly possible, and we'll continue to back-fill. We are not, contrary to popular opinion, stupid.

10 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Oct 10, 2012)

Read my responses to the comments (and the article above). We absolutely had to make this change. There was no doubt that we couldn't go on with the current scene much into the future.

We will 'backfill' as many cameras as we possibly can, and we're working on ways of preserving the existing scene data as 'legacy' content. We may also (if practical) shoot the 'old' scene and the new scene with new cameras, for a while, to maintain continuity.

We've done this before - the existing scene is only 3-ish years old.

5 upvotes
mbk
By mbk (Oct 10, 2012)

I just posted on the same subject while you posted a reply to this line of thought. Trouble is exactly what you say - even the current scene is not that old and that already created a problem with continuity. Now comes the next problem. I personally don't see value in making the comparison more *exact*. The primary purpose of the test scene is to make meaningful comparisons *at all*. A more "exact" scene that allows fewer comparisons is actually *less* valuable.

2 upvotes
Richard
By Richard (Oct 10, 2012)

Thanks so much. I really appreciate all the thoughts and work that goes into these things. Perhaps the ads are enough to make sure you guys get paid well. This is so awsome that the site is still free. I like the upgrades to the site and all the things you guys do. Don't let the complainers bring you down.

3 upvotes
Ron Poelman
By Ron Poelman (Oct 10, 2012)

should work well on a mobile phone.
(Cue sound of stable door),
or is that the sound of the old database biting the dust?
Just how it THAT resource going to be integrated into this
for comparing?

Lets hope it finally comes with a zoom
so you can compare cams with different resolutions at 1:1.

1 upvote
Underdog 3000
By Underdog 3000 (Oct 10, 2012)

Do you have time for this? As I'm sure you know, Photokina '12 has just ended and you already had a significant backlog of cameras to review.

I have an idea. You hire me to help and we will chew right through that work load in no time.

Cheers!

2 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Oct 10, 2012)

We're actually still waiting for most of them to come into the office (we don't review the pre-production models that we preview). And we've been working on this new scene for a long time because it's absolutely necessary. We established the need for a revised version of this scene long before Photokina.

4 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Oct 10, 2012)

You need to add a few bottle of wines, because is place is a WHINERY!!!

15 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Oct 10, 2012)

Lol, good one! And sigh, I am one of the whiners, I must admit :p
(time for my bottle mommy, wah! lol)

1 upvote
pedroboe100
By pedroboe100 (Oct 10, 2012)

+1

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Oct 10, 2012)

Would the comments be more concise if it was a 'DISTILLERY'?

Yeah? Yeah? See what I did there?

5 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Oct 10, 2012)

...O, the puns, I can't beer them.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 10, 2012)

Shadow, depth, and also separately shadow detail: Where are they?

Yep, with Combatmedic870 below, the thread in the black box sure was useful for approximating actual high ISO performance.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Oct 10, 2012)

Is it 3x2 and 4x3 compatible?

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Oct 10, 2012)

Yes, we did consider that ;) and 16:9 too, if we ever need to do that.

5 upvotes
rootsup
By rootsup (Oct 10, 2012)

Random question... is there one lens used for every test? Perhaps something you have with multiple mounts? If so I don't see how resolving power is something that is even considered? Detail is nice, but a lot of the times you are dealing with lens limitations. Perhaps someone can fashion a hassie lens to fix to your bodies :)

0 upvotes
Richie Beans
By Richie Beans (Oct 10, 2012)

For the life of me, I don't understand the value of analyzing photos of other photos.

Also...eliminating the box of thread is a mistake. That was a VERY useful point of comparison.

12 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Oct 10, 2012)

An equivalent will be added. You're looking at a nearly finished 'beta' version of the scene.

3 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Oct 10, 2012)

I agree with the comment about the thread! That black spool was the first place I'd home in when looking at the high ISOs!

0 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (Oct 10, 2012)

If the old test is not kept in parallel with the new test than having this change is worst than not changing.

10 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Oct 10, 2012)

We have considered that (obvious) point and we'll take it into account.

3 upvotes
jm67
By jm67 (Oct 10, 2012)

Oh, now that will be great to see. Low (and crummy) light....can't wait. Tragically, sometimes in life we have to shoot in it and it'll be interesting to see those results.

1 upvote
Total comments: 324
1234